AMD FX-8150 "Bulldozer" CPU Review - PAGE 5

This program includes benchmarks for most hardware. The CPU arithmetic and multi-core efficiency benchmark will be run, as well as memory bandwidth and latency.

SiSoftware Sandra considers the newest instruction sets so the FX-8150 and the i7-2600K are quite strong in the CPU arithmetic test. The latter is still a long way ahead, but that doesn't prevent Bulldozer from smoking the hexa-core and the i5-2500K. At 4.5GHz, it can barely take the lead. The multi-core efficiency has more than doubled compared to its predecessors, but it's still far from the high-end Intel chips. The 2.2GHz memory controller is pretty much equivalent to the 3GHz one on Phenom II when it comes to memory bandwidth, but the latency has not moved much. Overclocked, Bulldozer is on the heels of the triple-channel systems.

This week we launched the highly anticipated AMD FX series of desktop processors. Based on initial technical reviews, there are some in our community who feel the product performance did not meet their expectations of the AMD FX and the “Bulldozer” architecture. Over the past two days we’ve been listening to you and wanted to help you make sense of the new processors. As you begin to play with the AMD FX CPU processor, I foresee a few things will register:

In our design considerations, AMD focused on applications and environments that we believe our customers use – and which we expect them to use in the future. The architecture focuses on high-frequency and resource sharing to achieve optimal throughput and speed in next generation applications and high-resolution gaming.

Here’s some example scenarios where the AMD FX processor shines:

Playing the Latest Games

A perfect example is Battlefield 3. Take a look at how our test of AMD FX CPU compared to the Core i7 2600K and AMD Phenom™ II X6 1100T processors at full settings:

Map

Resolution

AMD FX-8150

Sandy Bridge i7 2600k

AMD Phenom™ II X6 1100T

MP_011

1650x1080x32 max settings

39.3

37.5

36.3

MP_011

1920x1200x32 max settings

33.2

31.8

30.6

MP_011

2560x1600x32 max settings

21.4

20.4

19.9

Benchmarking done with a single AMD Radeon™ HD 6970 graphics card

Creating in HD

Those users running time intensive tasks are going to want an AMD FX processor for applications like x264, HandBrake, Cinema4D where an eight-core processor will rip right along.

Building for the Future

This is a new architecture. Compilers have recently been updated, and programs have just started exploring the new instructions like XOP and FMA4 (two new instructions first supported by the AMD FX CPU) to speed up many applications, especially when compared to our older generation.

If you are running lightly threaded apps most of the time, then there are plenty of other solutions out there. But if you’re like me and use your desktop for high resolution gaming and want to tackle time intensive tasks with newer multi-threaded applications, the AMD FX processor won’t let you down.

We are a company committed to our customers and we’re constantly listening and working to improve our products. Please let us know what questions you have and we’ll do our best to respond.

Adam Kozak is a product marketing manager at AMD. His postings are his own opinions and may not represent AMD’s positions, strategies or opinions. Links to third party sites, and references to third party trademarks, are provided for convenience and illustrative purposes only. Unless explicitly stated, AMD is not responsible for the contents of such links, and no third party endorsement of AMD or any of its products is implied.

Only thing I can ponder is if all this next gen planning would show when testing the Windows 8 Dev Preview or not? If they really pushed for next gen then this would be a perfect testing bed it sounds like.

Well lets look at the bright side. Finally, computer users who buy 1000w+ PSU, this is your chance for a CPU that that allows you to show off the true power of your PSU.

The i7 920 and up were usually just as bad or even worse with power after OC'ing past about 3.6ghz. Granted they're probably still faster at those clocks of course.

I'd really like AMD to go after performance/die space as they do with the graphics card lineup. If they could optimize the x86 cores as well as they do their shader clusters per die space they would at least make a little more money off of their underperforming cpu's instead of trying to be competitive with a much smaller die sandybridge that beats it in performance. Of course I imagine it's at least a little harder to design an x86 core over tacking on more shaders, rops, texture units, and a new UVD every now and then.

The bulldozer CPU design is very intriguing and creative with all the new design ideas that it uses but at the end of the day it comes down to whether it can perform or not, and on this... well, you've seen the benchmarks. Seems we're back to the days of the original phenom x4's, decent enough for most things, uses more power, larger die size, not competitive in the high end.

the 4100 kind of looks worth my time, how does it compare to a 955 be?

AMD unfortunately has sent only its flagship.

My guess would be that they are approximately equal since there is a 400MHz difference. The now very great Turbo Core should help it to pull ahead though, and if the application can use the newer AVX, FMA4 or XOP, the 4100 is going to have a big advantage.

I will see if Neoseeker can get its hands on one. Stay tuned!

The reason I asked, was because it's said to be a bit cheaper then the 955, so, I was curious as to how powerful it was.

the 4100 kind of looks worth my time, how does it compare to a 955 be?

AMD unfortunately has sent only its flagship.

My guess would be that they are approximately equal since there is a 400MHz difference. The now very great Turbo Core should help it to pull ahead though, and if the application can use the newer AVX, FMA4 or XOP, the 4100 is going to have a big advantage.

The sad thing is that Intel 2600k uses ~2/3 the die size of bulldozer (And that's including gpu), 1/2 the transistors, and lower clocks to beat it in most tests. AMD might have gotten the performance/watt right and multi-core efficiency in tests that can use it, but it might as well be their Pentium 4 in every other respect.

That's the problem. Even the multi-core efficiency is far from optimal. It was expected to have lower single-thread perfomance but it was supposed to kick-ass in multi-threaded benches.

BD can't even beat Thuban. Well, AMD should have played the compatibility card. Those who have a 7XX with a dual-core athlon would be able to upgrade to a Bulldozer. Now, if they are to upgrade they are temped by the 2500K.

Just talked with chautemoc about how these benches are all turning out. Then I realized this and had to wonder how on earth do you get spanked by your value processor at like $125 less and about 1GHz difference in speed.

The A8 3850 is running at about 3.5GHz, the FX 8150 is OC'd at about 4.5GHz

Given the statements about overclocking the A8 though it might be safer to just look at a lower end first generation Bulldozer if I do go that route. Or even just to get a sale chip of the Phenom II :/